216 REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



lislies the concliision that his reference to Cohio Jli(ri(iiil!f< was due 

 to an erroneous correhition between Lioberlciiliirs text a.nd Lieber- 

 kiihn's figures. Finally, Biitschli's i\g. 18a appears to be the transverse 

 view of ISh. 



Concerning!: the relation between this form and 71/. sp. 45, J\r. Thelo- 

 han (letter to author, 1893) says: 



It is impossible to say wlietlior this iignro should bo approxiinfited. to uiy Myxohohis 

 of the bream. 



No description. 



Habitat. — Branchiae o^ Abramh hramn L, (bieani). 



45. Myxobolus sp. incert. 



Myxobolus of bream, Thdlolian, 1892, Bull. 8oc. philomat. Faris, iv, p. 178. 



Cyst and myxosporidium not mentioned. 

 Spore. — Length, 8 /^j breadtli, G to 7 //. 

 Habitat. — Branchiae of Abramis broma (bream). 

 Bemarlcs. — Differs from M. onulleri only in the smaller size of the 

 spores. Sec also remarks on the preceding species. 



46. Myxobolus miilleri Biitsclili, 1882. Pis. 16, 17. 



(Myxosporidian spores of Squalius cephahis, of Barhus fluviatilis, and of other 

 . liesh-water Cyprinoids, Biitsclili, 1881, Ztschr. f. Tviss. Zool., xxxv, ]). 

 030, footnote, pp. 030-8, 646-8, pi. 31, figs. 1-24.) 



Mi/xoboliis miilleri, Brouu's Thier-Reich, i, pp. 595-7, pi. 38, figs. 6-10; ib. Laii- 

 kester, 1885, Encycl. Britau., 9 ed., xix, p. 855, fig. xvii, 40, 41; ih., 

 Leunis, 1880, Synopsis d. Thierkde, ii, pp. 1137-8, figs. 1118-9; ih., Thelo- 

 hr.n, 1802, Bull. Soc. philomat. Paris, iv, pp. 166, 167, 178; ib., Gurley, 

 1893, Bull. U. S. Fish. Com. for 1891, xi, p. 414; ib., Braun, 1893, Ceulralbl. 

 f. Bakt. n. Parasitenkde, xiv, p. 739; ib., Braun, 1894, Ccntralbl. f. Bakt. 

 n. Parasitenkde, xv, p. 87. 



Synoiii/).'!!/. — Biitschli (1881) says the My.rosporidia investigated by 

 him came principally irom the Cyprinoids, but that he could not give the 

 species of host exactly, as he investigated large numbers of excised 

 branchi*. In part, however, these latter ^yere derived from Sqiialms 

 ceplialus and from Barbus fluviatilis. He further states that he was 

 unable to recognize any specific distinctions between the spores of the 

 series he examined. Biitschli's type figures of 1882 are copies of his 

 figures of 1881. Parenthetically, also Lankester's and Leunis's are 

 copies of these. Of those who have studied the pathogenic mus(;le- 

 form of Barbus barbus {=JiuviatUis), all admit its close similarity to, and 

 some assert its identity with, M. milUcri (see p. 225). Further, Pfeitfer 

 states that in the Ehine basin, in which the epidemic produced by the 

 muscle-form is very extensive, the branchiie are free from My.rospori- 

 dia, a nonassociation that would seem to favor the idea of specific dis- 

 tinctness. So fcir, then, no direct comparison has been made between 

 the spores inhabiting the branchine of B. barbus and those inhabiting 

 the muscles of the same fish. In the meantime it is probable that 

 Lcuciscus (sqiialins) ce2}haJus L. should be regarded as, so to speak, the 

 type host of M. miilleri. 



